You are on page 1of 3

7/14/2016

G.R.No.2869

TodayisThursday,July14,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.2869March25,1907
MATEOCARIO,petitionerappellant,
vs.
THEINSULARGOVERNMENT,respondentappellee.
CoudertBrothersforappellant.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralAranetaforappellee.
ARELLANO,C.J.:
Mateo Cario, the appellant herein, on the 23d of February, 1904, filed his petition in the Court of Land
Registrationprayingthattherebegrantedtohimtitletoaparceloflandconsistingof40hectares,1are,and13
centares, and situated in the town of Baguio, Province of Benguet, together with a house erected thereon and
constructed of wood and roofed with rimo, and bounded as follows: On the north, in lines running 1,048 metes
and20decimeterswiththelandsofSepaCario,H.PhelpsWhitmarsh,andCalsiontheeast,inlinesrunning
991metersand50decimeterswiththelandofKuidno,EstebanGonzales,andoftheCivilGovernmentonthe
south,inlinesof115metersand60decimeters,withthelandsofTalacaandonthewest,inlinesrunning982
metersand20decimeters,withthelandsofSiscoCarioandMayengmeng.
Byorderofthecourtthehearingofthispetition,No.561,andthatofAntonioRebolloandVicenteValpiedadfiled
underNo.834,wereheardtogetherforthereasonthatthelatterpetitionclaimedasmallportionoflandincluded
intheparcelsetoutintheformerpetition.
TheInsularGovernmentopposedthegrantingofthesepetitions,allegingthatthewholeparceloflandispublic
propertyoftheGovernmentandthatthesamewasneveracquiredinanymannerorthroughanytitleofegresion
fromtheState.
Aftertrial,andthehearingofdocumentaryandoralproof,thecourtofLandRegistrationrendereditsjudgmentin
theseterms:
ThereforethecourtfindsthatCarioandhispredecessorshavenotpossessedexclusivelyandadversely
anypartofthesaidpropertypriortothedateonwhichCarioconstructedthehousenowtherethatisto
say,fortheyears1897and1898,andCarioheldpossessionforsomeyearsafterwardsofbutapartof
thepropertytowhichheclaimstitle.Bothpetitionsaredismissedandthepropertyinquestionisadjudged
tobepublicland.(Billofexceptions,p.15.)
Theconclusionsarrivedatthesetforthindefinitetermsinthedecisionofthecourtbelowarethefollowing:
FromthetestimonygivenbyCarioaswellasfromthatofseveralofthewitnessesfortheGovernmentitis
deduced,thatinorabouttheyear1884Carioerectedandutilizedasadomicileahouseontheproperty
situated to the north of that property now in question, property which, according to the plan attached to
expedienteNo.561,appearstobepropertybelongingtoDonaldsonSimthatduringtheyear1893Cario
soldsaidhousetooneCristobalRamos,whointurnsoldthesametoDonaldsonSim,movingtoandliving
ontheadjoiningproperty,whichappearsontheplanaforesaidtobethepropertyofH.PhelpsWhitmarsh,
aplacewherethefatherandthegrandfatherofhiswife,thatistosay,OrtegaandMinse,hadlived....
In or about the years 1898 Cario abandoned the property of Whitmarsh and located on the property
describedintheplanattachedtoexpedienteNo.561,havingconstructedahousethereoninwhichhenow
lives,andwhichhouseissituatedinthecenteroftheproperty,asisindicatedontheplanandsincewhich
timehehasundoubtedlyoccupiedsomeportionofthepropertynowclaimedbyhim.(Billofexceptions,pp.
11and12.)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1907/mar1907/gr_2869_1907.html

1/3

7/14/2016

G.R.No.2869

1.Thereforeitisevidentthatthiscourtcannotdecreetheregistrationofallofthesuperficialextensionoftheland
describedinthepetitionandasappearsontheplanfiledherein,suchextensioncontaining40hectares,1are,
and13centares,inasmuchasthedocumentaryevidenceaccompanyingthepetitionisconclusiveproofagainst
the petitioners this documentary proof consists of a possessory information under date of March 7, 1901, and
registeredonthe11thdayofthesamemonthandyearand,accordingtosuchpossessoryinformation,theland
thereindescribedcontainsanextensionofonly28hectareslimitedby"thecountryroadtothebarrioofPias,"a
roadappearingontheplannowpresentedandcuttingtheland,asmightbesaid,inhalf,orrunningthroughits
centerfromnorthtosouth,aconsiderableextensionoflandremainingontheothersideofthesaidroad,thewest
side,andwhichcouldnothavebeenincludedinthepossessoryinformationmentioned.
2. As has been shown during the trial of this case, this land, of which mention is made in said possessory
information,anduponwhichissituatedthehousenowactuallyoccupiedbythepetitioner,allofwhichissetforth
as argument as to the possession in the judgment, is "used for pasture and sowing," and belongs to the class
calledpubliclands.
3.Undertheexpressprovisionsoflaw,aparcelofland,beingofcommonorigin,presumptivelybelongedtothe
Stateduringitssovereignty,and,inordertoperfectthelegitimateacquisitionofsuchlandbyprivatepersons,it
wasnecessarythatthepossessionofthesamepassfromtheState.Andthereisnoevidenceorproofoftitleof
egresion of this land from the domain of the Spanish Government, nor is there any possessory information
equivalenttotitlebycomposicionorunderagreement.4,Thepossessoryinformationfiledhereinisnotthetitleto
propertyauthorizedinsubstitutionforthatofadjustmentbytheroyaldecreeofFebruary13,1894,thisbeingthe
lastlaworlegaldispositionoftheformersovereigntyapplicabletothepresentsubjectmatterofcommonlands:
First,forthereasonthatthelandreferredtohereinisnotcoverednordoesitcomewithinanyoneofthethree
conditionsrequiredbyarticle19ofthesaidroyaldecree,towit,thatthelandhasbeeninanuninterruptedstate
of cultivation during a period of six years last past or that the same has been possessed without interruption
duringaperiodoftwelveyearsandhasbeeninastateofcultivationuptothedateoftheinformationandduring
the three years immediately preceding such information or that such land had been possessed openly without
interruption during a period of thirty or more years, notwithstanding the land had not been cultivated nor is it
necessary to refer to the testimony given by the two witnesses to the possessory information for the following
reason:Second,becausethepossessoryinformationauthorizedbysaidroyaldecreeorlastlegaldispositionof
the Spanish Government, as title or for the purpose of acquiring actual proprietary right, equivalent to that of
adjustment with the Spanish Government and required and necessary at all times until the publication of said
royaldecreewaslimitedintimetooneyear,inaccordancewitharticle21,whichisasfollows:"Aperiodofone
year,nottobeextended,isallowedtoverifythepossessoryinformationswhicharereferredtoinarticles19and
20.Aftertheexpirationofthisperiodoftherightofthecultivatorsandpersonsinpossessiontoobtaingratuitous
titletheretolapsesandthelandtogetherwithfullpossessionrevertstothestate,or,asthecasemaybe,tothe
community,andthesaidpossessorsandcultivatorsortheirassignswouldsimplyhaverightsunderuniversalor
general title of average in the event that the land is sold within a period of five years immediately following the
cancellation.Thepossessorsnotincludedunderthischaptercanonlyacquirebytimetheownershipandtitleto
unappropriatedorroyallandsinaccordancewithcommonlaw."
5.Inaccordancewiththeprecedingprovisions,therightthatremainedtoCario,ifitbecertainthathewasthe
truepossessorofthelandinquestion,wastherightofaverageincasetheGovernmentorStatecouldhavesold
thesamewithintheperiodoffiveyearsimmediatelyfollowingforexample,ifthedenouncementofpurchasehad
beencarriedoutbyFelipeZafraoranyotherperson,asappearsfromtherecordofthetrialofthecase.Aside
from this right, in such event, his possession as attested in the possessory information herein could not, in
accordancewithcommonlaw,gotoshowanyrightofownershipuntilaftertheexpirationoftwentyyearsfromthe
expirationoftwentyyearsfromtheverificationandregistryofthesameinconformitywiththeprovisionsofarticle
393oftheMortgageLawandotherconditionsprescribebythislaw.
6. The right of possession in accordance with common law that is to say, civil law remains at all times
subordinate to the Spanish administrative law, inasmuch as it could only be of force when pertaining to royal
transferable or alienable lands, which condition and the determination thereof is reversed to the government,
whichclassifiedanddesignatedtheroyalalienablelandsforthepurposeofdistinguishingthemfromthoselands
strictlypublic,andfromforestrylandswhichcouldatnotimepasstoprivateownershipnorbeacquiredthrough
timeevenafterthesaidroyaldecreeofFebruary13,1894.
7.Theadventofthenewsovereigntynecessarilybroughtanewmethodofdealingwithlandsandparticularlyas
to the classification and manner of transfer and acquisition of royal or common lands then appropriated, which
were thenceforth merely called public lands, the alienation of which was reserved to the Government, in
accordance with section 12 and 13 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902,1 and in conformity with other laws
enactedunderthisactofCongressbythePhilippineCommissionprescribingrulesfortheexecutionthereof,one
ofwhichisActNo.648,2hereinmentionedbythepetitioner,inconnectionwithActNo.627,3whichappearstobe
thelawuponwhichthepetitionhereinisfounded.
8.Section6ofActNo.627admitsprescription,inaccordancewiththeprovisionscontainedinActNo.190,asa
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1907/mar1907/gr_2869_1907.html

2/3

7/14/2016

G.R.No.2869

basisforobtainingtherightofownership."Thepetitionersclaimstitleundertheperiodofprescriptionoftenyears
establishedbythatact,aswellasbyreasonofhisoccupancyandusethereoffromtimeimmemorial."(Allegation
1.)Butsaidactadmitssuchprescriptionforthepurposeofobtainingtitleandownershiptolands"notexceeding
morethatsixteenhectaresinextent."(Sec.6ofsaidact.)ThelandclaimedbyCariois40hectaresinextent,if
wetakeintoconsiderationhispetition,oranextensionof28hectares,accordingtothepossessoryinformation,
theonlythingthatcanbeconsidered.Therefore,itfollowsthatthejudgmentdenyingthepetitionhereinandnow
appealedfromwasstrictlyinaccordancewiththelawinvokedherein.
9. And of the 28 hectares of land as set out in the possessory information, one part of same, according to the
testimony of Cario, belongs to Vicente Valpiedad, the extent of which is not determined. From all of which it
followsthatthepreciseextenthasnotbeendeterminedinthetrialofthiscaseonwhichjudgmentmightbebased
intheeventthatthejudgmentandtitlebedeclaredinfavorofthepetitioner,MateoCario.Andweshouldnot
losesightofthefactthat,consideringtheintentionofCongressingrantingownershipandtitleto16hectares,that
MateoCarioandhischildrenhavealreadyexceededsuchamountinvariousacquirementsoflands,allofwhich
is shown in different cases decided by the said Court of Land Registration, donations or gifts of land that could
onlyhavebeenmadeefficaciousastotheconveyancethereofwiththeassistanceofthesenewlaws.
Byreasonofthefindingssetforthitisclearlyseenthatthecourtbelowdidnoterr:
1.InfindingthatMateoCarioandthosefromwhomheclaimshisrighthadnotpossessedandclaimedas
ownersthelandsinquestionsincetimeimmemorial
2.Infindingthatthelandinquestiondidnotbelongtothepetitioner,butthat,onthecontrary,itwasthe
propertyoftheGovernment.(Allegation21.)
Wherefore,thejudgmentappealedfromisaffirmedwiththecostsofthisinstanceagainsttheappellant.Afterthe
expiration of twenty days from the notification of this decision let judgment be entered in accordance herewith,
andtendaysthereafterletthecaseberemandedtothecourtfromwhenceitcameforproperaction.Soordered.
Torres,Mapa,Willard,andTracey,JJ.,concur.
Johnson,J.,reserveshisvote.

Footnotes
1Pub.Laws,1056.
2IIPub.Laws,311.
3IIPubLaws,288.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1907/mar1907/gr_2869_1907.html

3/3

You might also like